Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> There is no Content-Transfer-Encoding header field in HTTP. It is simply >> not needed.
> Just as a matter of curiosity, what happened in HTTP1.1 to the fragment in
> RFC2616 that says (under Content-MD5):
> "The entity-body for composite
> types MAY contain many body-parts, each with its own MIME and HTTP
> headers (including Content-MD5, Content-Transfer-Encoding, and
> Content-Encoding headers)."
yes, I was going to bring this up next :-)
> This seems to be a source of confusion, e.g.
>
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5169434/content-transfer-encoding-in-file-uploading-request
> . RFC7030 uses a content type of application/pkcs7-mime. So is it
> allowed to specify a MIME header?
I also found that while googling.
I went through the effort of doing a multipart *reply* in HTTP for
draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher, and I really found it hard to determine
what the MIME rules for *HTTP* were...
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
